2018
DOI: 10.1509/jmr.16.0453
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Modeling Gift Choice: The Effect of Uncertainty on Price Sensitivity

Abstract: Gift giving generates high revenues for retailers. It is also marked with significant welfare, or deadweight, loss in that givers tend to pay more than the receivers’ valuation. Previous research has attributed this discrepancy to givers’ inaccurate predictions of the receivers’ preferences. This research demonstrates that reduced price sensitivity is another important source of the deadweight loss: givers use gift prices to signal the importance of their relationship with the receiver. In order to demonstrate… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
14
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
(57 reference statements)
0
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, some researchers have focused on moderating variables that might influence gift-giving behavior such as occasions, giver-receiver relations, and givers' personal characteristics (e.g., Antón et al, 2014;Babin et al, 2007;Baskin et al, 2014;Palan, 2001;Weisfeld-Spolter, Rippé, & Gould, 2014). Others have focused on comparing gift giving (choice for others) and choices for oneself (e.g., Pandya & Venkatesh, 1992;Wang & Lans, 2018). Previous studies that tried to deal with giftgiving process adopted conceptual approach or performed qualitative research (e.g., Joy, 2001;Larsen & Watson, 2001).…”
Section: Theoretical Implicationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, some researchers have focused on moderating variables that might influence gift-giving behavior such as occasions, giver-receiver relations, and givers' personal characteristics (e.g., Antón et al, 2014;Babin et al, 2007;Baskin et al, 2014;Palan, 2001;Weisfeld-Spolter, Rippé, & Gould, 2014). Others have focused on comparing gift giving (choice for others) and choices for oneself (e.g., Pandya & Venkatesh, 1992;Wang & Lans, 2018). Previous studies that tried to deal with giftgiving process adopted conceptual approach or performed qualitative research (e.g., Joy, 2001;Larsen & Watson, 2001).…”
Section: Theoretical Implicationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Additionally, consumers often rely on price as an indicator for product quality (Erdem, Keane and Sun 2008;Guo and Jiang 2016;Wang and Van der Lans 2018); a higher price is seen as a signal of higher product quality. Thus, for products priced low relative to others in the category, reviews with 4-or 5-star ratings should impact purchases.…”
Section: When Do Individual Reviews Matter?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Through gifts, donors try to signal their empathy, thoughtfulness, and closeness to and intimate knowledge of the gift recipient (Ward and Broniarczyk 2016). Moreover, gift purchasers want to convey generosity and thus tend to display a higher willingness to pay (Fuchs, Schreier, and Van Osselaer 2015; Moreau, Bonney, and Herd 2011), using gift prices to signal to the recipient the importance that the donor attaches to the relationship (Wang and Van der Lans 2018). Signaling in gift purchasing is both direct, in the one-to-one relationship between donor and recipient, and indirect, relative to a wider audience (e.g., when publicly presenting a gift at a birthday party, encompassing people the donor may know personally; Wooten 2000).…”
Section: The Self-enhancing Nature Of Gift Purchasesmentioning
confidence: 99%